RoR: Forum

I am not able to read the article without register. However, in general, between life and the principle of freedom of speech, I'd choose life. I see nothing wrong with censuring advocating of killing other human beings. Such killings have already happened in New York, Madrid, London and elsewhere. And I know I could as well be the next killed. I feel neither proud nor fortunate knowing that somebody living next door would be cheering my death at the hand of terrorists.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 7/25, 9:12am)

Post 21

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:20am

Good word choice Hong. Censure, don't censor.

Post 22

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:31am

I actually used censure unconsciously. After looked it up in the dictionary, it is indeed a much better choice of word, and it does not exclude the action by official censor.

Post 23

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:24am

Censure or censor, that was an amusing mix-up ;-)

Most people here are agreed that censorship should never be allowed. But what if a crime is instigated?

If someone published a book saying, "Please go out and kill MrX. He lives at such and such address." Then that would qualify as a premeditated crime.

However, if someone published a book saying, "Please go out and kill anyone of MrX's race, religion or nationality." Then that would not qualify as a crime, because it is not specific enough?

Post 24

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:34am

Linz wrote: If the publications cited here are closed down, one of the core reasons we fight terrorists in the first place will have been negated.

You got a big red check from me for that. (What is the world coming to?)

Post 25

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:47am

"If someone published a book saying, "Please go out and kill MrX. He lives at such and such address." Then that would qualify as a premeditated crime."

If the author acted on the words he wrote, certainly that would be incriminating to him. That actually seems like another reason against censorship. If the author does follow through with what he wrote, his written threats could be used as evidence, so better that the evidence is more easily available.

Post 26

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:59am

However, if someone published a book saying, "Please go out and kill anyone of MrX's race, religion or nationality."

Of course this is a crime. What is unclear about this?! I don't understand what is morally wrong to censor such so called "free speech". We should not place any principle, including that of free speech, above one's life.

Post 27

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:27pm

Hong, thats at least some of what I've been saying. Yes it's only legitimate to respond to the initiation of force but thats a hell of a lot broader then waiting until they hit you first. The whole point of responding to the initiation of force is to defend yourself, that has to be kept in mind first and foremost. In that regard, intent to initiate force is just important to defend against as the force itself. Its morally right and prudent as hell.

Also, http://www.bugmenot.com/ use this!!! You can get into all those registration sites. If you use firefox like I do, get the extension and all you have to do is right click to get in.

Aaron what world do you live in? If a guy writes or says he wants to kill me, it ain't going to do me a damn bit of good if they use those words against him at his trial, after I'm dead.

Post 28

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 8:59am

Unless rights were violated in the process, it is never appropriate to restrict free speech. Period. This doesn't even need to be discussed, in my opinion.If rights are rights, they are yours, period. They can't be taken away subjectively or arbitrarily by majority whim. I'm sure I will hear some arguments from some of you regarding Rand's views on emergencies, during which she advocates rights violations in order to serve the good of the collective...but I digress.

To those who advocate restriction of anti-Western propaganda, in which capacity do you feel this is necessary and feasible? Are we going to get Billy Gates to filter out words on our search engines like he did for the Chinese?

Where is this restriction enforced? Everywhere? Only on other's private property? I can't see how saying you're going to kill Americans in the privacy of your own home would be any less of a threat than someone who said it in public, so I'm assuming this would be a blanket restriction of certain phrases which have been known to incite terrorist sympathy.

Really, this wouldn't even work. It would be so difficult to enforce that it would be completely superflous, and the amount of rights it restricted in the process would fair outweigh any amount of potential good toward the end of reducing terrorism.

mcd

Post 29

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:29pm

Just quickly: I hadn't really addressed the censorship part. I don't support it at all, I prefer to know where people stand and all censorship does is prevent you from getting a warning when they come for you.

Post 30

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:23pm

It seems to me that principle and practicality are -- as they should be -- on the same side here.

The Islamists are going to communicate their ideas; the only question is to what degree they do so openly and to what degree they do so secretly.

If it's done openly, it may yield information and evidence that leads to the ability to stop, or at least punish, the crimes that are committed pursuant to the ideas that are communicated. It also yields the material to combat the ideas with better ideads.

Government can't go prying into what everyone reads, but if Subject X is observed near the scene of a bombing, and if witnesses say that Subject X has also been observed hanging out at "Osama's Used Books -- Your One-Stop Shopping for Bomb Recipes and Infidel Killing Machines," he might be someone that the police would want to look at. Or Subject X can get his Islamist propaganda in a plain brown wrapper in the mail and maybe he gets away with three bombings before anyone catches on.

Hong, you say "I feel neither proud nor fortunate knowing that somebody living next door would be cheering my death at the hand of terrorists." Would you rather not know, even if it was true?

Tom Knapp

Post 31

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:45pm

Hong, you say "I feel neither proud nor fortunate knowing that somebody living next door would be cheering my death at the hand of terrorists." Would you rather not know, even if it was true?

Fair question. I guess what I meant to say is that I feel violated that somebody who want me dead are sanctioned because of some so-called principles.

Post 32

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:51pm

Freedom isn't always pretty, but if not for the occaisional ugly side effect think of all we'd be giving up.

I'm personally not looking forward to the day when I can be arrested for owning a copy of a King Diamond cd, or a hardcore pornographic video staring consenting adults, or a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and if this was enacted as law there would be no doubt people willing to exploit it to make all those things possible.

---Landon

Post 33

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:15pm

"Aaron what world do you live in? If a guy writes or says he wants to kill me, it ain't going to do me a damn bit of good if they use those words against him at his trial, after I'm dead."

If you killed the author, his writing would serve as very compelling evidence of extenuating circumstances for your actions. I'd acquit if he had specifically written that he wanted you killed. Would you not prefer his writing be above ground so you are even aware of his threat in the first place, and so it could be used as evidence to clear you if you took such action?

Post 34

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:39pm

Hong, not initiating force against someone who wants you dead (ie, not censoring them) is an entirely different matter from sanctioning (ie, approving of) them.

Post 35

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:42pm

Hong,

Are you suggesting that one has the right to enact force based upon a pre-emptive implication of the use of force by his victim? I'm interested to learn where you draw the line. When do you pull the trigger? If someone writes that they will kill you, do they immediately forfeit their rights in the interest of your self-defense?

MCD

Post 36

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:23pm

Let's make this personal just to stir things up a bit. In post #7, Clarence threatened to kick my ass if I show up in his 'hood wearing a bin Laden shirt. So, do I have the right to preempt Clarence by using force, since he has threatened me in writing?

What say y'all? : )

P.S. I thought I'd better add the smiley face!

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 7/25, 4:37pm)

Post 37

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:40pm

No free speech. No, no, no! None!

--Brant

PS: Just so an opposing viewpoint might be heard. :-)

Post 38

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:59pm

Well Semprini to you too.

---Landon

Post 39

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:07pm